tv Capital News Today CSPAN August 31, 2011 11:00pm-2:00am EDT
>> you come in with all different categories and you have to be aware of the negotiations of those things. values can change. it's all complicated stew. they are basically fundamental. i look at why the country does well or why it doesn't, it's fundamentally a values things. it's not natural resources. these are two crucial values. do you believe the future can be different than the present, and do you believe you can control your future? these are not universal. some places they have it, some places they don't. u.s. we have exaggerated sense of how much control we have. it's good for us. finally on the polarization and tieing it into the theme. if i see somebody in my group
punished, my brain reacts violently. not any group being punished, sort of callous about that. we have essentially a tribal nature. and in washington we have tribalism on stilts. we have magnified tribalism. i mentioned the effective groups where people took turns and communicated. if you have the definition of dysfunctional group, that would be congress. they don't communicate or listen very well to each other. the polarization that occurs in washington is in part caused by the fund raising and media redistricting, but it's mostly caused by the psychological psychodynamics of tribalism. i think. good people struck in the tribal hatfield and mccoy system. i see it primarily as a psychological and immoral problem, not fund raising.
>> we need party that is have conversations with each other. >> let's see, back here lady with her hand upon her right. >> in the columns last sunday, you spoke about how we americans over estimate our capabilities in every field. i'm wondering if that is unhealthy and unrealistic, which is the opposite that's the tiger mom. >> a couple of months ago, i was driving, and happened to here command performance. the episode that i heard was aired on veejay day.
he got out there and say we've just learned on world war ii. mer death got out there and read and pyle said we won because we have great soldiers, allies, and a lot of material abundance. we didn't win it because we are anything special. we should be glad and worthy of the piece. that tone of humility was so striking to me on the day they won world war ii. then i get home and i turn on tv, i'm watching football, and the corner back tackles the wide reciever after the two yard gain and does the victory dance to himself for his great achievement. it occurred to me i just seen greater self-puff reafter a two year gain than world war ii. i do think it's a change from a culture of self-afacement. nobody is better than me, i'm no
better than anybody else. look at me, i'm good. and the polling data is the favorite one, the seniors in 1950, are you a very important person? 12% said yes. in 2005, i asked again, are you an important person, it wasn't 12%, it was 80%. so that's just the change. if you look at the math scores, we're 36th in the world in math performance, but we are number one in the world in thinking we are really good in math. so that's a change. this expansion of itself led to par sanship -- partisanship because i know the answer. why should i stay for future generations. i'm here, i feel less connected to the broad change. and i think if you look at this societies that have done really well in math, they are the ones who have least confidence in their own abilities. and so i think the lesson from
the research is that you should have a slightly above average view of yourself. you should exaggerate your virtues a brake lights to make sure you did go out and dare and try difficult thing that is are hard for you. we've taken it to the extreme. one the phrases is the core of my political philosophy, is modesty. we should be aware about how little we know about ourselves and the world and prepare ourselves with those weaknesses and not think we are the bees knees. >> again, senator. >> if you want a good recipe for modesty, write a column every twice in a week. you'll read in the paper, what was i thinking? what did i -- [laughter] >> i've got a quick question for
you. it's been on everybody's mind. what do you believe that our current -- can you name three things the current president has done correctly and a dozen things, 20 things that he has not? [laughter] >> he's the best since i've been covering education. two, i disagreed at the time. he was right to rescue gm. you know, i could list more actually and there's some things i disagree with. i think i cover the president, and i speak to him periodically. i speak to people on the staff every day or several times a week. i would say within the white house, i disagree. within the white house, there's a culture of debate.
they do try to find the right answers. they generally have the best interest of the country at heart, they are smart people there, they -- half many them from harvard, half of them from yale. if we are attached during the harvard-yale game, we're screwed. they will all be there watching the game. i think there's an honest culture. as for the failures, you know, i thought when we did health care, i thought we had two central tasks. the first was to cover 39 million uninsured people and the second to get our cost inflation under control. we did one, i don't think we did the second. so that would be one thing i disagree with, i think he tried too much in the first few years and really polarized the country maybe more than it needed to be. i wish he would call some of the members of the opposing parties, someone that i'm friendly with
is is a guy named paul ryan from wisconsin. very smart chairman of the house budget committee. i know them both. they would really get along, they would have wonderful conversations about the future budget that could really lay the ground work. obama has never called ryan and asked him over. he's never had a conversation with him. i think they should at least talk. so that's just the function of the nature of washington. which he's -- i think he's well equipped to change but hasn't really taken the measures. i could go on, but i think that's enough. >> well, let's see, there's a lady four rows from the back in the center. >> you know what, sir, we have other people with their hands up. further back. >> you spoke how some variables of success were based on the 18 month old time period.
in an effort to close the achievement gap, the educational achievement gap, would you be a proponent of mandatory childhood education? >> yeah, i wouldn't want to make it mandatory. just because that gives you all sorts of political problems. and i still essentially think that the relationship between a parent and a child is better than it's going to happen at a public, especially a state supplied day care center. i wouldn't want to force people to do it. nonetheless, i do think there should be on one hand more funding. it should be a right of passage. we should do a lot better job of organizing our early childhood centers, our head start centers so the people there are teachers, rather than people we needed to give a job to. and we should not only we should start earlier. we should start with nurse family partnerships and visits, so nurses are coming into homes. and gives mom help on how to
coach. in the first year of life, the average mother loses 700 hours of sleep, gets interpreted every 27 seconds on average, and sees a decline in marital dissatisfaction of 71%. it's tough. they are charming, but they are invading your brain. it's a brutal thing. people need help. if you go to certain neighborhoods, things i've seen, babies locked in a car seat, coca-cola in the bottle to keep them quiet, there are things where people need help. we should be more aggressive. then you can't stop because even if you help kids at an early age, a lot of help fades out, and benefits. it has to be like nutrition every day, you got to have early chidehood education, schools where peachers are able to connect with kids. you've got a mentoring program, they've got to go to college where they peel emotional engaged with within. if they think about dropping
out, there's someone they care about. they are engaged with the campuses. all through life, there has to be the concentrations of really relationships. so i would spend more money. i'm avoid the lobbies with the big guns, the k-12, caller, higher ed, and mostly the senior citizen lobby. and zero through three is a pathetic lobby. i'm afraid that's very vulnerable in state after state. >> you mean you could take us out with your predictions from 2012 since we're not going to see you before then? >> i could write about book. but it would kill me. i really wouldn't bet against president obama. he is a very -- [applause] >> he has an amazing ability,
i've seen him since he lost the -- the democrats lost the election, to self-correct. he has many personalities, the downside, he rarely commits all out. he's always one step back observing. the upside is he tends to look at himself and say how do i need to change? what do i need to do? he has the ability to adjust and political skills. when i look at politicians, it's like a scout looking at pitches. who has the best. i remember when i saw him in 2005. long time ago, i thought he has the best stuff. he's probably going to be president some day. i wrote a column in 2006 on him because i thought he had the best stuff. i still wouldn't bet against him. that said, i'm not sure what he's going to run on. i don't think you can run the campaign that you ran last time, the big transformational hope and change. can't do that, can't run on health care, can't run on the
stimulus, his administration has been slow to come up with the new big agenda for what to do in the next four years in a country that is still furiously concerned about national decline and furious at government for screwing things up. so that'll be a big challenge. on the republican side, the person that i would like to see get the nomination, i'm in a front about this, i'm not supposed to root for one candidate or another, but it's the government of indiana, i like him because he's 5 ft.'6",w to the ground, in touch with people, you have to be down there. i think he's been in an extremely effective governor at a time when state budgets have ballooned and gone up 40% state after state. in indiana, the debt has gone down 40%. at the same time, a lot of programs that republican matter have been improved. even wait times at the department of motor vehicle have dropped from 60 minutes to 8
minutes. i think he's been effective government. i think the government that the republicans would do well to counterprogram against the graceful, elegant and brilliant democrat that may not be charismatic, but knows how to run things. i think the other two are mitt romney and tim pawlenty. managers, i'm less enamored. pawlenty was a good governor, but i haven't seen as much management. i think republicans have two problems. the first is they to their credit and this is to obama's deficit, they are saying we have to tacklen titlements. that is a courageous step. because the government is more than they are willing to pay for. we have to adjust the benefit
levels. they don't know how to sell it, and i don't think the republicans understand not only do we have a recession, we have structural problems in the economy which have hurt the middle class. i don't think there's an republican answer to that problem. i think they face some challenges. and they face sort of a talent deficit. i wouldn't debt against obama. but it'll be a -- we'll eventually get to have the fight which we need to have is here's the money, here's the national wealth, here are programs, here's our debt, how are we going to figure this thing out? i'd love to think we're going to have that really series debate and then to end on a pessimistic note, i really don't think we're going to have that debate. thank you very much. [applause] [applause]
>> host: major jane blair, you are the first woman to right a book about your experience with respect to iraq. why? why would you want to write a book? >> guest: ma'am, thanks for question. i had a lot of reluctance about writing the book, being a marine, i think there's a natural tendency to want to not highlight my experiences, just be a marine, and not get involved with writing and all of that. i kept a journal during my time in iraq. after i had gone through the notes, i realized i had incredible stories about marines in here that no one knows about. i felt it was almost an obligation for me to paint the portrait of my time in iraq, but also highlight the stories of other marines that i served with that i felt had done such incredible things. no one was talking about it. i thought i got to commit this with paper. all of these stories have to get
told. i have to write it. >> host: it's interesting. because the men and women that go to war, they rarely discuss what they've seen. so it's real interesting to have read "hesitation kills" and to really see the perspective of a woman and how she deals with being in the military and how she deals with the whole aspect of war in the sense of, hey, i'm targeting someone here, and they are going to be killed. so i'm sure there was some hesitation when others heard you were writing a book like the colleagues and stuff, the other marines, you know, because my brother was a marine. they are tight lipped and pretty entrenched and pretty together and there's this wall of silence in a sense of what happens among the marines. how did they treat you when you said i'm writing a book? >> guest: actually, everybody was encouraging. i had taken on the unofficial role of the squadron historians. everyone knew i was documents everything that happened,
because my unit which was one the few unman air yell vehicle squadrons in the whole war, not just the marine corps, but throughout the combat operations, it was unique thing that we were doing. it was the first time that we had employed uavs and drones. people were excited to get our story out. i've received a lot of praise for my colleagues, surprisingly, i thought they would be critical of it. i think they are happy their story is being told. it's highlighting a piece of history, really, that a lot of people don't know exists. >> so take us through this. because let's first discuss, you know, women have been in and been participating really in all of our major wars, all the way from betty ross, making the american flag if you will to you people know jessica lynch as the first p.o.w. woman taken in
iraq, for example. let's go back to the whole issue. as you know, one the things i've been working on as a ranking women and all of the military issues in the house of representatives and 15 years now my entire service in the congress, on the armed services committee, i've been really watching and seeing how the role of the woman is, the military rank. so let's go back to something that's very important because you did something that i believe was very unique. you pushed the envelope in women being involved in combat in iraq. let's talk about first of all, what combat means. some people think that woman shouldn't be involved in combat. talk to me. >> combat is an interesting thing. a lot of marines think that to be in combat means you urn the combat action ribbon or you've reached a certain level or you have to be infantry.
stepping back, look at the definition of combat, it's any offensive action between enemy or foreign forces that results in some kind of conflicts. you know, that definition in mind, i think that we have no front line really in conflicts in iraq and afghanistan. people who traditionally couldn't be in the combat are finding themselves on the front line. that means support unit that have females or untraditional roles that, you know, people didn't sign up to be in the infantry are finding themselves on the front line. >> guest: right, traditional we felt it was infantry. >> guest: exactly. >> host: jessica lynch, supply on the convoy, and finds herself in a fire fight and finds herself as the first p.o.w. i want to go back to that. you were involved with some of that.
you see someone like ruby who was up on the day that the bomber got through the front line and went into the coffea into the mess hall and blew up the place. she was one the people blown up. the reality is i would say that'ses front line. almost any place is the front line if you are in a place like iraq or afghanistan. >> guest: yeah, you know, surprisingly, women are often unacknowledged for serving those roles. there's no combat roles for women. and whether that's because of current policy or just because women are suddenly finding that gauze of the way the wars are, they are putting -- they are being put in that place. i think there's a role for women in this capacity that they are finding, you know, that policymakers and the military find it very useful. such as being interrogated, translator, serving civil affairs, or being in the female engagement teams which aids in helping the indigenous, you
know, women and children in order to communicate. >> in other words, when we go into afghanistan, we go into the villages and trying to win the hearts and minds in afghan. women are more effective than talking to the women. guys can't, they are more effective than the villages and getting more information about the taliban or who's aiding the enemy or more importantly what the town needs in order for it to be more cohesive and stand on its own so that we can get out of afghanistan, if you will. >> guest: absolutely. i think women are bringing a new dynamic to the frontline. and combat is always changing. the way that we conduct warfare is constantly evolving. we are no longer doing the first generation, force on force type of maneuvers that require that we have, you know, total upper body strength that we are hiking
for miles, that we are doing stand to stand combat. sure the skills are important. right now, forces are finding themselves confronted not only as infantry, but they are finding themselves in the role of diplomat and peacemaker where there's a necessity to have the role of discussing and finding out ways to have conflict resolution with whatever culture that we are dealing with. >> host: either on the athletic field. we found when we do the test, the guys have the strength that that's important. as mono y mono contact. women are better endurance, women on the average can run and endure more of the long -- of the long trail if you will. so these are very, you know, women bring a different set of skills to that. i think it requires both sets of
skills to be the most effective military that we have. so i don't -- how did the marine guys feel about having women in the role? because you talk -- you had some very interesting snippets here about, for example, one of the lieutenants who when you were in a second lieutenant didn't appreciate you being around. >> guest: there's two points. i think there's growing pains in becoming a marine. it's not just boot camp and you are a marine. it takes a while to really understand what it is to be a marine. i mean it could takes years. i think sometimes you see in sergeant major or the colonel, you know, the exemplar of what it is to be a marines. sometimes it takes a long time. some peel get it when they are a lance colonel, others takes year what it mean to be a true marine. because of that, you know, i think for me there was a lot of
growing pains at beginning. i grew up in a nontraditional military environment. no one in my family had served. there was a lot of growing pains for me to figure out not just the jargon, lingo, yes, ma'am, yes, sir, and follow orders and deal with that. in my new unit when i first became an officer, there's a certain rights of passage that the second lieutenant has to go to where you are the youngest most junior member of your unit and you've got to prove yourself before you are accepted as a member of the folds. so there was a lot of that going on. and -- >> host: but that happens in almost any job. the office, whatever it is. you've got to find your way and feel your way around about who really works, who's the really get to person, who's always angry about anything. you know, you got to know what's going on in the unit. it's even more important i would assume if you are going to go off to war and depend on the people to keep your life.
>> guest: absolutely. i found it was something different maybe in the civilian job that i found was the idea of surrendering my sense of per son -- persona or identity. things that were not marinelike. whether that meant being femme e -- feminine, for example, nail polish, makeup. you have to surrender. if you wanted to get integrated, you have to learn to be a marine. that means not making excuses, not having any kind of behavior that's different from what's expected. and i found that by surrendering that and letting go of things that after a while i think just because trivial to me. people accepted me as a marine. they would look to me as a marine before looking to me as a
woman, man, or that thing. i'm a marine. >> host: in the book, you talk about when you are over in kuwait and iraq. you were surprised that men were ogling some of the women. how can you say, you know, i was accepted as a marine when one of your superiors looked at you and said these are guys. hello, you are a woman that haven't seen something like this in a long time. because they've been stuck out here. >> guest: i guess, of course, there's always that. you can't become your cookie cutter marine like that. the fact is i'm a female. they are always going to see me as a female too. >> host: did that hinder you in trying to get your job done? do you think they said this is a marine? or at least initially, this is a woman? it wasn't until they gained your trust -- i mean i think -- i would assume that maybe it's the wrong assumption that guy to guy marine probably assumed they are going to watch my back from the beginning. oh my god, here's my partner.
she is a woman. >> guest: yeah, i think there's definitely a testing phase that goes on when another marine gets to know you. i think initially people are like okay. i don't know what to expect. is she going to ask for special favors, is she going to expect me to help her, or whatnot? i think once you prove that you are going to do the job, people accept you as that, and it takes maybe a little bit for them to start thinking of you, not just as a, you know, female, but think of you as okay this is a marine and accept you as that. i remember some candid discussions with some fellow lieutenants of mine who said, you know, i forget that you are a female sometimes when they are discussing, you know, taboo topics, usually, and they will pop back in. like oh my god. i shouldn't be saying that in front of you. no, i'm just one the marines here. >> host: okay. that's the woman thing.
with any good writing, again, i'm going to tell you this is really some superb variety. i really enjoyed reading this. there's several stories going through there. you are talking about being an unmanned air vehicle, your in charge of basically what most people don't know were -- they know know, but it's not traditional. it's new at the time in particular of the beginning of the iraq war. it's where we fly the unmanned vehicles over the area of the battlefield, even to get recognizance, or figure out what's going on ahead, or over head as we see an engagement of troops and then getting that, seeing that, and getting that information back to the person on the ground so that he knows the enemy is, you know, just over the ridge, and be ready to shoot, or he knows there's a convoy coming or hey there are too many enemy troops in front of us. we've got to go and hide some place for a while.
not that marines would hide. you know what i'm talking about. you are overwhelmed. [laughter] >> host: that's combat. you are basically -- you are seeing the big picture of what's going on. that's unusual. we use it more, we'll use it more in the future. but you were on the cutting edge of doing that. and you were also -- you didn't know. you didn't know if you were going to have see. you are trained for this. there's the whole thing about what do we do? we have women in our unit. talk about that because it's sort of the scene going through the book. >> guest: there was sort of the understanding that i would never go to combat, according to what i had heard from the recruiters. yeah, you are going to say the oath, but you are going to be a
support unit. well, if i had to go to combat, i said the oath and i'm going to do my duty and do that. come nevada of -- november of 2002, my unit says we're going to go to iraq. i mention in the book this story. he pulls the two female officers, myself and the other female aside and says, look, by order of congress, you are not allowed to go with us to combat and iraq. we are pushing ahead and going to do some infantry. i'm going to fight for you, get you to kuwait, i've told higher headquarters that the unit is not going to be effective without the females in the unit. because we represented not only the collections portion, but one the females was a pilot for the
drones. we had other females in very important support functions, so they formed the backbone of the unit. and every section, you know, of communications marine, so without them, we were really going to be sort of the skeleton crew. he said, look, i'm going to push for it as best as i can. i'm going to get you to kuwait, we'll see what happens. if i have to leave you in kuwait, so be it. we're all going to kuwait. get to kuwait and they forget about us. >> host: what do you mean they forget about you? >> guest: there's a lot of things happening. they don't have people to come replace us. i'm guessing they realized they had to leave us in place. we were not going to be an effective unit without us being in that unit. so as a result of that, when we got the order for the war to kick off, we were ready to go. then it dawned on me, wow, okay,
i guess i'm going to combat. i guess i'm going to iraq. i was actually happy for it because i wanted to be with the unit, of course, and do the mission. and i think all of the females were expected and excited about that idea of going with the unit and glad that we had sort of been forgetten about. >> host: it was a crazy time, i remember, because we had a vote on the congress about whether to go to iraq or not, that happened in october before the november election. you find ourself out there in november. we are sitting around, trying to figure out what we are going to do. we launch in march. so you find yourself in iraq. give us a little bit of what that felt like, did you wake up every morning with adrenaline going, did you have your gun with you all the time? you know, -- oh, and by the way, the second story going on
through that is that your husband, peter, is also a marine. and he's gone already into iraq. so you are in kuwait, he's in iraq. you are in iraq, you don't know where he was. talk to us about the day that you actually did get to see him and what happened? >> guest: well, for my book, there's two stories. it's kind of a love story too. my husband and i got married before we both went to iraq. >> host: i you wanted a big wedding. then you realized -- >> guest: yeah, we had planned it for may of 2003. it was not a good date after all. we ended up postponing everything. his unit launched ahead of mine, they deployed sometime in very early january. and so we had gotten married two weeks before and we didn't know how we were going to communicate because i had his address, but he didn't -- he wasn't going to have my address. there was no way for him to get letters to me.
so we spent the first couple of months really have no way of communicating. and so there was sort of the expectation of gee i hope that maybe i'll see him out there in kuwait or iraq somehow. but i had some good units and higher headquarters who sort of kept me informally -- >> host: where he was around? >> guest: yeah, they let me know his unit was over here. i prayed i didn't hear any news bad about that unit. there was no way to know what was going on with his unit or him at all. so it was weird because at the same time, i was espouse, and trying to grapple with the feelings of i'm a newlywed, i miss my husband, but i have a mission to do. i can't think about him right now. i have to focus on what i'm doing here. it was hard at that point. especially being newly married, i think, it was -- i felt, wow, you know, what happens if we are
killed and i never even really get to know my husband at all? >> host: that happens to a lot of people anymore. >> guest: yeah, it does. >> host: imagine in world war ii, all of the couples that got married before our men went off, most of the men went off to d day. we just passed d day ten days ago, the anniversary. there was a lot of that. at least today we have something other than snail mail on ships. we have e-mail, we have phone, we have, you know, -- we have a better chance to communicate. what happened on the day that you saw your husband in kuwait -- in iraq. >> guest: the day i saw him was before we kicked off going into iraq. >> host: okay. you were in kuwait. >> guest: he was also. because i have the privilege through my job of actually going to some meetings near where his unit was located.
but after going to some of those meetings, his unit was off doing an exercise. we had failed to meet several times. i had left a note for him and his unit. so he knew that he was looking for me. i was able to pass my mailing address to him and everything. so we'd write the ridiculous letter that is would say on the envelope unit to unit mail, in huge letters so they wouldn't route it back to the united states and back again. we found out that's what they were doing. sending it to the united states to come back. it would take a month, instead of two weeks. >> host: like when your lose the baggage. >> guest: we saw each other. it was great. because, you know, i feel very privileged i had the opportunity to see him, first of all. it's hard to describe it as romantic. >> host: tell us about that. it was funny. i started laughing when you discussed it in there. [laughter] >> guest: you know, my husband took one the humvees and drove over to the firm area which was
the frontlines of kuwait and looked out into the desert and both realized the obvious -- absurdity of looking over into iraq. we knew we were soon going to cross the threshold into iraq was really interesting. and like something out of a movie. surreal. >> host: yeah, surreal. when your husband left, you were in 29 palms. you don't give that a very good writing by the way. i'm a californian. you know, i'm out for in orange county, it's about an hour and a half to the east and camp pendleton to the south. you weren't very nice to california, talking about how it was a big desert. it's a great place. that's where we can put everybody out there and train in more like series of what they are going to see in iraq or
afghanistan. so you are living out there, you are -- you just got married, you bought a house, you are hanging out, your husband leaves, he leaves you a letter. he says if i die open this up, now i'm not going to tell people what that said. they should get the book and read it. did you ever open that letter? >> guest: not until iraq. but i definitely felt like opening it many times. but, you know, i kept it because i wanted something to look forward to when i needed to read it. so i kind it left it as a last resort type of thing. open when needed. it was sort of a bedrock of holding me while i was in iraq. so it was kind of a nice gesture on his part to leave me with something i felt knows i would be following him soon after into kuwait and iraq. >> host: great. so it is a long story. you are still with your husband. everything is good and worked
out. >> guest: yes. >> host: okay. being in iraq, and ordering what you knew looking and seeing and ordering, telling people, hey, you've got to go and basically drop bombs on the guys and do something to the enemy. you were one of the first to do as a woman. how did that feel? >> guest: yeah, you know, first of all, you know, killing in itself is something that is immoral decision that i think every combatant has to grapple with. you know, the idea of am i ready to kill and what are the moral results of that? and how it's going to affect you afterwards. and there's great books out there on killing, that talk about the effects of killing on, you know, other person and what that means and the results afterwards of grappling with that. part of that is through the lens of the unmanned aerial week,
when we were calling for fire on the iraqi, there's a level of distance. okay, there are lives down there. but i'm not looking them in the eye, staring at them face to face. so at the same time, you feel like because you can see the big picture, okay, i know that that unit is about to call for fire with their artillery on friendly forces on the marines that are coming down the road. so it's my job to protect them. and so i felt very much throughout the war and in iraq that my job was as the protector of the forests. >> and again back to the title of the book "hesitation kills." if you see something and you know it's either going to be -- you are either going to order the kill, or they are going to order the kill on your people. >> guest: exactly. right, you only have a moment to decide this. and you have to think beforehand. you know, what am i going to do in this situation? you don't have time on the
battlefield to discuss them or think about them and grapple with them. you need to think about before and know at the moment exactly what you are going to do and execute it. because you only have moments sometimes. it could be at the risk of someone else's life or greater casualties or risk putting your own unit at risk as well. >> host: talking about the day that you were going to go out on the road, go up to an area where there was a lot of activity. and that might have put you more in a mano y mano situation. you didn't go up and heard the next day the fuel truck didn't come. so you didn't go up. someone else did ahead of you. >> guest: yes. >> host: how did you feel about? because they did what you might have been doing? >> guest: that moment was probably i think what my unit talks about the most as being the hardest unit. i've talked to my commanding officer, we've kept in touch,
and we talk about this particular moment a lot because had we gone through that area that was right when pse lynch was going through the critical area, when there was unexpected amounts of forces fighting against our unit and basically our units became entrenched in that area and turns out there were a lot more combat that they had expected. we were initially supposed to push through that area and go up north to an area called alcut and launch. we could look at the ground forces came forward. we would be in advance and be able to see what the threats were. but we were hearing advantagely enough on the bbc radio, that area was being blown up. >> host: bbc radio? >> guest: they were being attacked by the iraqi forces.
they were being met with armored units and very strong resistance, and unexpected amounts of really iraqi armoured unit forces that were entrenched in that. >> so you could have been there. and instead what happened? >> guest: well, we were waiting. before we could go forward, we had to get the gas. in order for us to fly, we had to send out the fuel truck that would take half an hour or hour where the tanks were. but we kept waiting, and the fuel truck never came. so we had an order to go forward, but we couldn't go anywhere without the fuel truck. >> host: so jessica lynch and others went that day. >> guest: exactly. >> host: we know what happened. at the end of the story with jessica living lynch did you hay
involvement? >> guest: they were at the hospital when they were doing the rescue. we got to watch the whole through thing the lens, at least from the rooftop. we also did the scout out beforehand. so we were flying over, looking for critical nodes or indications. >> host: said they might be there collaborate information we had heard from others. that's what we try to do. even, for example, when we went after osama bin laden and pakistan. i mean we actually had heard that he was there, maybe a couple of years before. but you really have to find tune and continue to look for information that collaborates the story that people are telling you. you have a high chance that, in fact, that does happen there. right? so that if you send troops in, you have and going after osama bin laden or going in to get jest
jest -- jessica lynch. >> guest: exactly. the flyovers calletted she was in the city. we were in the collaborative effort that resulted in your rescue. actually, i think, that is one the shining moments of what they did. my marines were spectacular, they were able to look at the imagery, and understand it and analyze it. they did a phenomenon job. thanks to them, they saved so many lives, on both sides really. it was -- their great effort that led to your huge success. >> host: you and i have other things in comment. your mother is puerto rican. do you know spanish?
>> guest: unfortunately. embarrassment to my mother. >> host: you know arabic? >> guest: yes. >> host: i did also and studied arabic. did the knowledge of other languages help you while you were in iraq and kuwait? >> guest: absolutely. after high school instead of going to college, i traveled for about a year and a half. and it was during the gulf war. i started off in greece, and then to my parents unhappiness, i went over to the middle east and lived in egypt and israel and jordan, specifically jordan during that time period. so it was in terms of just the cultural knowledge that i accumulated, but also just some language skills too. and i just fell in love with the middle east from an early age. probably due to studying history as a -- looking through and looking at all of the art from the egyptians and history. but -- so my love of the middle
east then led me to study further. and so before my unit went to iraq, i became the sort of cultural expert and taught classes to the marines on the behavior around muslims and just about the, you know, the culture as a whole. part of that was some arabic, the language of some familiarization classes for them. and so a group of us, we started studying more of the language and in iraq, i came the unit interrogator, translator, basically just the person who whenever we manage and iraq could talk to them. so it was extremely useful, because, you know, on several occasions we were able to deescalate violence that could have resulted if no one was able to talk to them and find out why they were mad and what they were doing. >> host: how much time did you spend in iraq? >> guest: i spent the deployment, so early on i don't
know how many months it turned out. but certainly not the amount of time that people are deploying today. you know, people are going for a year and a half now. >> host: marines originally as i recall, we would put them in for six or mine -- nine months, depending on the mos. and what they were doing. and our army on the ground actually in iraq originally we had them in there for about 15 months or so. so we've now cut them back to a year. but it's still a long time. it's a long time to be in war. talk to me about that. because you discuss it a little bit in the book about being at war all the time every day. and then coming back to the united states. and how you go from that situation to deescalating in a sense that your body and mental state and everything to be able to flush back in to regulate the
states. >> guest: yeah, it's certainly an adjustment. i feel for the soldiers, marines, you know, service members who have a hard time adjusting back. because it is an adjustment. and when you are in that alpha mode kind of. i have to be alert to everything around me all the time. you develop a sort of mindset that it's a very aggressive mindset of looking for threats constantly around you. when you come back to america, you are still sort of in the mindset and it's very hard to, you know, just relax and, you know, -- but for me, crowds were hard. i couldn't get near a crowd. i still have some phobias about crowds and whatnot. >> host: because in iraq, if there was a crowd, it was like lier problem of maybe somebody doing something, hiding within the crowd. >> absolutely. you have no control in the crowd. you don't know what's going to happen. it could escalate into a
mob-type scene. your mind triggers back to you, okay, can i control the situation i'm in? do i know where all of the threats are around me? and so, even coming back i think there's still the possibility of okay, what's the situation around me. are there any threats? i still think that way a little bit. so it's -- you are never completely out of that. >> host: as a marine, i know this is a hard question to ask. i'm not going ask about you specifically. as a marine when they come back, whether a woman or man, macho, not supposed to seek help, you are supposed to be reintegrate. we are finding more and more because we work with the healthy soldiers and the programs in camp pendleton. sometimes you need to go over and talk to somebody and get a plan of how you deescalate and come back in. do you see more of our marines now or do you think there's still the i'm strong, nothing is wrong, i'm going to be able to
do this on my own? >> guest: yeah, i think that people are starting to ask for help. there's not as much of a sort of -- people aren't looked at any more for asking for help. because it's something that effects everyone differently. i've seen people try to get over post-traumatic stress order or even the trauma of a combat in different ways. everyone has different coping mechanisms. writing the book was very great for me. i got it all out, i said it, i felt like it helped me. i saw marines who were dramatically affected from within my own unit. it was sad. some became withdrawn, others turned to drugs, some had violent acts, and, you know, it's just unfortunate because i think if people reached out for help, no one is going to look at them as being weak.
it's people need to take care of themselves. there are great programs out there for people to take care of themselves now. you know, i wish that marines and any service member would take advantage of those opportunities. because life shouldn't be a bushed. you shouldn't have to live with those memories all the time and think that there's a constant threat towards you all the time. it's just not. >> host: okay. now to something funny. in the book, you have several instances where enlisted don't know that you are or don't -- they see you but you they get you that you are their superior. tell me about one of those instances. how do you over come that? how do you over come the fact that, you know, early on one the soldiers and marine said i never salute women. lath >> guest: yeah, well, i
look young. especially then i looked really young. >> host: you look very young, by the way. >> guest: well, back then, even more so. it was so it was always strange. i remember when i was in the kuwaiti airport, there was a senior enlisted marine with his friends on the side. he came over to me and he's like, ma'am, how old are you? he saw my rank, he thought i'd at least be 22 or something. i think i was 29 at the time. i said i'm 29. and he said, you know, you look like you are 16. but i mean he didn't say it in a negative way. he was just so surprised because i look so young in uniform. >> host: but any instances where, you know, they were just down right not very nice? tell us. like what's been an instance where, you know, somebody has mistreated you or when you have outranked them? it's taboo in the military. you are always in the corner of
your eye checking out and trying to figure out your pecking order? >> guest: yeah, i think sometimes maybe not so much anymore, but people will try to gaffe off an officer and walk by and see if they can get away with not saluting. >> host: what do you do? >> guest: you go up, i'm an officer. some kind of respect would be nice. you correct them. and let them know, hey, you know i rate a salute just like any other officer. and so i mean there was the culture still existing like that. but it's a small minority. and, you know, those aren't your good marines, really. they are just marines who don't know. :
right now. >> guest: know, you know, thankfully throughout my time in the course i had some great leaders. one of the people i respect most is the kernel wallace, one of my first commanding officers, and i remember him particularly because when i was younger private first class straight out of boot camp and listed he came up to me, shook my hand and treated me as i was some important officer, and i always remembered her about my time knowing and looking at his leadership that he treated everyone with such respect no matter what rank you were and i always try to follow this example all the time of being
respectful, and if there was something i felt wrong i would correct them but in a respectful way, not in a way that would put them down that everyone has faults sometimes it's just a matter of correcting it and trying to correct it in a constructive way because i know that criticism on constructively doesn't help anyone and people would respond to that and generally i would get a sari or apologize or something. >> host: what about, there was another woman officer in your unit, and she couldn't wait to get out. explain that. here you come and you are a new man to the second lieutenant coming over and you are excited and your patriotic and you start to get there's this thing about being a real marine and stir to your job and the first day you run into hersheys like can't wait to get the heck out of here. so what happens to her in that situation and why, why such the,
you know, why, what was the difference in the way that you found the court and she found being a marine? >> guest: you know, i think the separating factor in why sometimes people decide to get out is because you have to decide whether you are going to integrate and sort of accept that marine spirit in you and if you hold on to facets of your life that are not marine like, for example, she was a lovely person and everything b ut, you know, she just didn't want the gung-ho type of lifestyle. she didn't want to be the, you know, albert tough female and this isn't part of her character. she didn't want to emulate that or become that and so for her it seemed like it was always a struggle to try to get accepted or just be accepted at face value, whereas for me i was constantly pushing it like a, i commanded that sort of respect because for me it was important to be a marine and it was important to do my job and sort
of be the officer and the leader for the marines during this mission that i felt was important. not that she didn't. she was very competent and everything but for her, i mean, she had enough. she just saw that it wasn't for her. she didn't want to aspire to that type of model. >> host: to another question i have because of course i meant to the mba school and one of the first on spoken lessons you learn is that if you are not in charge of the bottom line of the company, you are not going to be the ceo. if you are in charge of human-resources, they are not going to consider you. if you're in charge of the manufacturing or the making of cars of the bottom line of the profit and loss of that you have a shot at being ceo. so the marines, the number one dubious combat. so here we are -- and by the way, the converse is not the
congressional law it wasn't a law that was passed that said a woman can't be in combat. we actually in 2005 said the department of defense gets to decide that. it's the policy in the department of defense, and that's why when we were talking earlier about there are some other mos's and other things that might be able to be moved. so the congress in 2005 from a leisurely 73 days that no women in combat in these particular areas. but in 2005 we changed that and we said the lesson department of defense if you're going to change it you have to come in to the proposal and maybe the congress will stop you from doing that but it is the dod policy right now so they are looking at that. but, you know, how -- if you are a woman and you don't get to go to combat, even if you are already there like jessica lynch was, i would say that they're
like rupert was, like you were, then one of the general said monday this is the reason why we are never going to have the three-star and force are women who are generals because if you are not in charge of combat or you can't show that you're in combat when you move up the chain and you're competing because you know, it is a move up or get out at some point with the officers. so if you can't show that in fact part of what the marines is about he's going to get promoted over you. so how we change that, what do we do about that? how do you react to that? >> it's a difficult issue because women are excluded from a lot of jobs in the military. i mean, the combat roles essentially, and that means the ground operation units such as the infantry, artillery, armored units, things like that. it creates of course a vacuum that women cannot reach a
certain plateau and then it's sort of hard to get promoted after that because they can't get any of those other experiences. >> host: would you say we should let them, should we change it? and what we do it by saying we are going to put different standards for the women who want to move forward in those or how would you -- first of all, would you allow women to do some of that which would broaden their ability to have the combat experience and what kind of -- what kind of help or changes would you makes you can ensure that at least some women could be in those ranks? >> guest: yet, as you said dod is looking at those issues right now and, you know, they are going to be able to assess the best way of thinking of the women to get integrated in those roles. but from a personal perspective, i think the women are already serving in some of those capabilities, and are capable of meeting those missions and any front such as, you know, the
female engagement teams or the civil affairs. that there should be certain applications for the women in these slots. >> host: you want to see the tree and four-star general women? >> guest: absolutely but not as a cross of marine physical standards. i think they should look for the different jobs and determine what the physical standard necessary to do this job. it's not just women who might not be def also heard stories about him an officer who gets a 100-pound guy in his unit and says he can't lift the 100-pound shell that weighs the same as him and he can't do his job, even though he is technically qualified to do that job. so it's not just women. actually, making a physical standard for each job would put the most effective and white people in that job whether they are women or men. >> host: i've always said that not every man makes a good
soldier. not every woman makes a good soldier, but if a woman can meet the standards and she wants to do it then why are we holding her back from chongging? putting an artificial piece on it. so my next question is out of all of the stories that you've told in this book, there were several in which when you were in iraq or kuwait, what was your most troubling or most difficult situation that you came across? >> guest: well, you know -- >> host: you don't want to give them all away. you want people to buy the book. >> guest: beginning i was just learning to grapple with the idea of when we were actually still in kuwait that is my unit was still in kuwait, the idea of the combat even in kuwait and so when the missiles started
getting a launched we thought they were coming right towards us because we would get the notices from the higher headquarters that says inbound, and then we would try to plot where it was going to land and the missile fire back and so you really felt sort of that you know, suddenly - combat and others like gas alerts going off and everything. so, that was hard, and especially because i had to control the mission at the same time in terms of looking at what the threat was and there were critical things we were doing at that time which is we were looking out at the oil wells and determining if there was any sort of damage on behalf of the iraqi forces because that is the indication that we were going to launch a ground war so the unit was passed this mission of keeping an eye out on this whole southern region. >> host: i remember you write in the book that day. so you started the war is what you're saying. >> guest: my marines did.
but i had this really savvy smart marine and she was just great at looking at the imagery has said very matter-of-factly to me. he said i think there's some damage on some of the oil wells, and you know, i knew that once we said that was out there something was going to happen. so i asked them are you sure that's what we are seeing and he looked back like no, i don't want to say that. so he went back and he looked at some other words out there and sure enough we saw that the liver damage where the five years were being let off and the streams from the oil wells and gas explosions and things like that. and so when we've reported that back to the headquarters, they immediately came back and within five minutes, ten minutes said okay we are going to launch the ground war had earlier periods, at that moment --
>> host: years question. when i start on the services committee 15 years ago one of three of the committee of the 63 members of course seniors, 39 for the democrats, when we first started that, we would actually have a vote on an annual basis for the first two or three years to just get rid of women in the military. and on that committee, on the armed services committee, some democrats and some republicans would vote to keep the women out and it wasn't until we brought the bill to the house floor that having more women and people in the congress that we would put the women back in the military. so, even 15 years ago people were still like women are just a problem in the military. so, my question to you is do you think and how do you think the role of women in iraq and afghanistan today, do you think that is changing the mind maybe
not of the american public since they don't see it so much, but the mind of our military leaders as they see the women perform? >> guest: absolutely. i was surprised to see what the women were capable of. i mean, i had stereotypes and expectations before i went into the military of whether i was capable of doing it or not, and i was surprised that the women's kit devotees actually in the camp and the school of not i was capable of and what other women were capable of and just seeing that on many occasions we could compete with the men. you know, maybe we had a physical limitations, but as a whole we were doing the same type of training that they were doing. and that carries forward to the military units that we would be integrating the trend from after bush camp we would conduct emissions the same way that they wouldn't go through this and
exercises and training and everything and i was always in the women's capability not only that, but having served leader as a marine attache working with foreign militaries i was surprised at how positive i was received especially in that it was an unexpected thing for them, for example i was the first woman to serve in that capability, and people were very receptive of it and initially they have some hesitation about putting me in that role because they were not sure they were going to be receptive to that. but, you know, it had opened up doors for me about what the women can do and i think it's fantastic because women bring to the table in terms of diplomacy or civil affairs, you know, different than men and i think it's just like any other field,
you can't take women out of the equation. men and women -- >> host: if you're just saying no women at all, that you're taking away the pool from which to control the very best for the marines or soldiers. >> guest: and its you know, i was never a huge a ticket for women in combat until i started the issue -- >> host: what about sexual harassment? >> guest: >> host: did you see that, did you see it in iraq? is it coming out, is it going of? >> guest: this is the issue i get asked about a lot and in my own personal experience, i haven't seen much of it although i do know it does happen, and when i have seen at i dealt with it very effectively and swiftly where the officers in charge will carry out the equal opportunity policy and ensure that it is complied with as soon
as possible. so, you know, it happens, it happens in the civilian life, too, not just in the military. whenever you put men and women together i think it is bound to happen. but the strange thing is i felt less discriminated against in the military than i did in a civilian capability. i worked in some companies before i went into the military, and also that the contracting company after another to become and i was really surprised to find that people treated me more like a woman than not capable of doing basic things than in the military where people just sort of treat it like a marine first and then as a woman second. and just how different that was coming in support of the reason i wrote the book is to really show that there is a role for me in the military, a positive role. i had read so many books that portrayed women as always having a negative experience, and i
wanted to show positive can come out of that as well. >> host: cingular a reservists now, one of the toughest things to do because it is all about, you know, shoving paper around. everybody i ever talked to if you can get past major, lieutenant colonel, colonel, you're going to do great but major is a lot of paper pushing but less pushing right before we end here. hesitation kills. so, you've had a good experience, you wrote the book because you had a good experience. it's really also a life story as you indicated before. i hope people will read it. peter, your husband -- if you have a girl, let's say you have a baby and you have a girl, would you tell her yeah, okay to go to the military, it's a good career if you want to be a marina, be all that you can be. would that -- would you say to your daughter if she can do one day and said i want to be a marine? we have about a minute left. if you can tell us.
>> host: i would train her to shoot. [laughter] but that's just me. i think to the women's basic training it should be exactly the same. >> host: said he felt going good. he would have all been taught her how to shoot -- ayman arlene torrijos, exactly. well, jane, major, thank you so much and for having written speech," and i hope that the viewers will pick up the coffee and read it because i really found it incredibly great. >> guest: thank you so much. it's been an honor.
now physics and mathematics professor brian greene on his book, "the hidden reality about the possibility of multiple universes'. he was at the boston museum of science for a little more than an hour.go good evening. is a sp it is a special pleasure and honor for me to welcome brianlcn treene to our fair city, and ci before we start talking aboutou
other universes why don't we ta talk about you. i know some people would like to know some personal details about you. i understand you are a vegan.yo. [laughter]are a ven. >> yes >> yes, in this universe i am, that's true. >> used all my next question. >> disturbing to think so but according to barbara understanding that's quite possible. >> i was on an airplane a few days ago coming from london, and the woman next to me i ordered a vegetarian and she said would you be offended if i ate meat and i said i don't care what you eat. any way i see you are a friend of the doctor. >> but he doesn't sit next to me on the airplane. it works out. >> so, tell me something else. i am dressed and you have eight number called, what is it,
>> there's this idea of how many degrees of separation you are from famous people. so the original one is how far away give an actor was from kevin bacon, and then mathematician's wanted to compete and have their own version of kevin bacon who collaborated with many mathematicians the question is how far away are you from having written a paper with him and then people said let's put it all together and see how far a given individual is from kevin bacon and aros and there aren't that many people that are sort of close to both, but there are a handful of us. so i'm one of them. >> how many are you? >> i used to be the world leader. >> what's your number? >> number five, but i've been overtaken. >> fight in one? >> five total. fi from aros and two of them
from bacon or something like that. but i think that gweneth paltrow has taken over the lead. i'm not sure, but there are definitely people that have taken over. >> but you have a number one. >> that's all communicate, yes. >> so, what is this -- let me ask you we all think that there is one universe. how could there be more? >> that is a central question to start with, because a long time ago, two years ago -- [laughter] the word universe meant just what you're saying. it meant everything, that have become every store, every galaxy, the whole shebang. so what sense could there possibly be in having more than one of everything and what we have found in the research that actually dates back a number of decades but most vigorously relatively recently is that of a mathematical investigations, our
suggestion that what we have fought to be everything may actually be a tiny part of a much grander cosmos, and that grande kosmas can contain other realms that seem to rightly be called the universe just as our realm has been called universe which means you have many universes', multiple universes' which would call them multi first. islamic it sounds like a brand of cereal to me. malae serial or something. so, tell me, i understand that physics is a science, an experimental science, so where does this come in? it sounds more like a religion, there's this universe and another universe. how do we learn about the other universes? >> how can you gain confidence in an idea that speaks of the realms we cannot see, that we can't touch, we can't visit, we
can't desert directly. let me give the answer. in some versions of the multiverse and i should emphasize not one proposal but a number of universes and proposals and in some there can be subtle connections between the universes that might allow us to have some experimental window on to them. so all of that set aside for the moment, let's think about the ones where you couldn't visit them. well, why do we think about these things? well, we have a believe founded upon really hundreds of years of experience that math can provide a gateway to reality, it can't provide a window onto a reality that at the moment the math is being done, we can't actually see were observed that really. einstein is the greatest example. he wrote on the equations of the general relativity way back in 1915 and others listed those and found that they seem to save the universe should be expanding. the matter said that the
universes is expanding and einstein himself said no, i don't actually believe that, but 12 years later observations showed the universe is expanding. the math was confirmed by observations, a verdict samples are black holes. again, his mouth gives rise to them. einstein didn't believe it, observations now show that there are black holes. so we are following in the tradition. we are doing mathematical equations, following them and as you can discuss in some specific cases, they are leading us rich by rich to the possibility that evers is only one universe. does that mean the math is right? we don't know. it has to be confirmed or ultimately tourism and observation of experiment, but the possibility that the math is revealing this new picture of reality is sufficiently compelling that many including the taking of the investigation to be to investigate vigorously. >> i think the operational word here was tanned because mathematics is not just physics.
>> exactly. >> sometimes the mathematics works and sometimes it doesn't. you don't have to go very far but if we go back to concede that they were invented by a mathematician, a greek mathematician and then use them to argue the earth is at the center of the solar system or the universe for him six years mathematics that is valid mathematics and not very complicated mathematics but nonetheless. but it doesn't describe for devotee. and you can go to leave iran for example -- >> before you leave that example, because i think that is a great example where you have some individuals who were looking at the motion of the earth and the motion of the planet and coming to the certain conclusions that we now know to be erroneous, the conclusions about how things are working. there were other physicists, mathematicians, who looked at that math and said this is so complicated and convoluted and if we look at the map this way
it all sympathize, but the conclusion is that the earth is not the center so we were propelled by the mathematical investigations imagine the earth is not the center and then others using similar that the sun is not the center either and then similar mathematical reasoning showed us that our galaxy is not the center. it's one of many galaxies. we've gone through a sequence of the cosmic emotions by following the math, confirming it through observations we may be on the threshold of the next demotion by following exactly the same patterns. earth is not the center, the galaxy is not the center, our universe may not be the center. it may be one of many universes following exactly the same pattern. >> the key is the mathematics is always simpler in this sense. but when you do very complicated mathematics and trust your equations, often these equations are cumbersome. >> i can understand where you might come to the conclusion
because we get into the details some of the multiverse ideas come from the string theory which seems like a complicated subject when you hear about its features but when you look at the equations of the fury, the starting point, it's actually pretty simple. >> how many are there? >> there is one of now. there was a time we thought that there was a handful, but wonderfully in the last decade the matt has come together and we've realized what we thought were different fees were the same just expressed in a different language. so everything has been simplified. if you take even a good example of the darwinian evolution, the principal of the evolution are pretty straightforward, but nevertheless those principles can yield the rich variety of the life that we see on earth. the outcome can be complicated even though the starting point is simple that is the way that i would characterize our thinking about certain modern physical theories. the outcome of the pherae if we get into it, extra dimensions
from vibrating strings, it seems complicated but that's the richness of coming from evolution, the starting print of the fury like the starting point of evolution pretty straight forward. >> so, tell me, what are some of these furies that lead to the multiverse? in your book to describe several of them. i couldn't find one of the anit-universe. that's my favorite actually. where your anti-person -- >> do you favor that to the multiverse? >> beebee good place to start would be what i consider the simplest of all, which is to imagine the possibility that if you were to get into a rocket ship and head out into the cosmos, would you at some point hit a brick wall? most of us don't think that is the case. what do circle back to your
starting point like what would happen on the earth's surface? that's possible. or would you simply keep on going forever? we don't know, but let's take the third possibility seriously. if we do there's a startling conclusion and it's simply this: in any finite reason of space, the matter can only a range itself in many different configurations and particles. large number of similar like to get that card if i shuffle the debt of the card deferred, there are only different orders of the cards and many different orders are still finite, so if i shuffle the deck and at times infinitely many times, the order of the cards have to repeat. similarly in the infinite space the order of the particles, the configuration of the particles has to repeat, too. what would that mean? as we heard in the introduction would mean something pretty strange. you see, you and i are just a continuation of particles. everybody in this room is just a configuration of particles as is the earth and the sun and so forth. if the configuration of
particles repeat someplace out there in the cosmos, it means all that we know is repeating. we are out there, and that's a very straightforward mathematical conclusion from a simple starting point. estimate your leaving out an important thing. and level of that when you go to the infinity. >> it doesn't matter. that may be the probability of less speaking in another universe. do you want to go there? >> absolutely. i don't need to frame it in the terms putative let me do it in a more concrete setting. if i have the deck of cards and i shuffle it over and over again, do you agree that sooner or later the order of the cards will repeat? not the probability, i'm not saying that it's too large -- too your taking the easy way out. i'm talking about the universe. >> you're just counting the power. the infinite space. this is a supposition. you can challenge that, but let's not just to get to the argument, if you take on board this idea which i think most
cosmologist and physicists have this case goes infinitely far, then you've got a lot of room for this to happen. that's the point. >> i have a problem with space going indefinitely far. in mathematics, you mentioned but in the physics the way that i anderson and physics, these three dimensions in which we live in the first time which weinstein taught is related to the others was created in the big bang. so, i think that if you think of this, and correct me if i'm wrong, this base year was created in the big bang. we are not expanding to another space, we are creating space as we are going out. as the galaxies are expanding with these 13.7 billion in iran. we are creating free space. so, where is the other universe? as mathematicians, okay, this dimension goes on forever. but i think we have the universe
year and one here and one here and many of them that is okay, but doesn't really exist from a physical point of view when the space is created in the big bang? >> i do need to corrected a little bit with all due respect. [laughter] so, there is an incorrect image that many people have in mind which is this. when we think that the big bang typically we imagine that further and further back in time, the entire cosmos is smaller and smaller and smaller, and we back toward the beginning, the universe we sort of intuitive we think of as very, very small and then from that forward and as you are saying, this piece is created from the big bang so how could it ever be infinitely big if it were very small in the past? and if that were the right picture, you would be right, that is not the picture that is compatible with the infinite universe. in an infinite universe as you head back in time, the universe
is still infinitely big. if you go back in time and the universe is half as large as it is today and half of the infinite lisalyn fenty if you go back further one-third of devotee is still an affinity -- the traditional one -- >> the universe is infinite? >> that is the thing coming gist. >> what is the radius of 13.7 billion light years? so the universe goes beyond that? >> that's the key point. the big bang is an event that gives rise to our realm, but if the universe is infinitely big, then our part, the part that we have access to is only piece of the entire day. so, you need to -- >> so expanding as well. islamic you need to make a distinction between the observed universe and then the entire city. the observable universe is the part that we can see and you are right we cannot see further back than roughly 13.7 billion light years because that's the amount of distance light can travel
since the beginning but we almost nobody believes the universe and at that point most everyone believes it goes on at least for distance beyond that and the supposition that goes on indefinitely for a. >> torian decision, too. he pulled out the in fenty from your hat. what does it have to do with anything here? anything we learn about physics is financed. what does antonette mean? the have a copy of the images are the continue amoore the function? i mean, to invoke an affinity you have to give me something. the most straightforward definition would be the same causality has the real line. the real line extended in exactly the way that you know from when you took the mathematics at a young age. let me ask you this and turn it around. if it is not infinitely big what happens when you travel out? >> i interviewed steven weinberg a few months ago about the
cosmology and i asked him the big bang is believed to be a quantum fluctuation and that is what created our universe. what is the quantum fluctuation in? what is the medium in which we respond if you will? and he said that, we don't know. we can't go there. we don't know. but you are telling me something else. you're telling me that there is an inch in the of space as mathematically i agree the line exists but it exists peloton ackley . islamic if you build a space ship and go out and just keep on going, what happens? >> well, if i take physics the we physics has been done, here's the big bang. it started here, but there is no -- location has no meaning. you can't define that as being located in space because it doesn't exist before the big bank hope. i don't know about other
universes. if you start your come this space is greeted with a big bang. >> if you go to a rocket ship and keep going what happens? >> you can't. >> you have a ship and go out. >> is it an end? is that the starting point? >> you know pretty well with you in a telescope in this direction that might and in that direction that might the two parts takes the farthest galaxies that you can see and faster than light because of the accelerating expansion of the universe acceleration so that part doesn't talk to this part how are you ever going to get to one part to another with space ships that trouble less than the speed of light. spaghetti get in that should what happens? >> i don't know what happens. i would be lost in space. [laughter] >> so, it is a mathematical question which in language would be what is the overall topology? >> that's where i disagree.
i think that topology exists with mathematicians minds as a platonic -- the way that the variety is were the motives or things that we have nothing to do with the real battle. >> this is a good point. as they take part in mathematics you actually that is my key point which is it's not physics to read a lot of mathematics here doesn't do anything for us. i will give you an example. we talked about cycles. when i take the glass i will give you another example. so brenda heisenberg who i actually met -- [inaudible] [laughter] >> i want it at the same level. so, one of the folders of the quantum mechanics and in the twenties developed the theory that if a bidding as the principal and matrix mechanics and anyone that step further chief of he's going to go to someone else and he said here's
the proton and i need three ice cubes here and there. we of the proton and neutron and the symmetry between them, i'm going to use the mathematics of the summit to explain why they are similar and he calls it has you know and we know where it went from there, but that assumption was wrong. that was taking mathematics that makes a lot of sense in your mind as a mathematician and has nothing to do with the real world in the sense that the protons and electrons. they look very similar because of an accident of nature because the courts are so small so to speak. one is a lot heavier than the other in absolute terms but when it compares to the math of the two then you think they are really very similar and he went into the symmetry. of course you and i know that later they add it and did all kind of things and the mathematics sort of came back. but at that moment what you have
is a mathematics as very powerful and absolutely worthless. -- which -- ruthless triet i rest my case to this gimmick mathematics opens the realm of possibility. thank you. and what the art of physics is is being able to sniff out which mathematics is able for the reality and which mathematics is not. now experiments and observations are a key part of that story and in the one that you just mentioned ultimately it was observations and experiments that dictated that math wasn't the right direction to go. so, what we need to do, and what we spend our professional lives doing is trying to understand which body of mathematics is relevant for the reality and which is not. now, in this particular case that we are talking about, the argument makes the assumption that a certain body of mathematics can go on infinitely far is relative to the reality. if that isn't right, and it may
not be i'm the first to say that it may not be but if it is, you come to this startling conclusion. it's not, then you don't. and i think that is the mode of thinking about many of the multi first proposals. many of them start with a certain mathematical framework, push the math as far as we can to the border of understanding and then use them to look out over the horizon and see what's there. are we seeing the devotee or are we seeing mathematical ideas? that is the question ultimately that has to be confirmed or defeated by observation. let me just give you an example where that mode could have appeared. some people ask themselves if it doesn't go on indefinitely far, could we perhaps observational the established that? that would be a nice thing to do. one way to do that is if it doesn't go on infinitely far and if it does have the shape like the surface of the earth where it comes back on itself, well, then as you know, there are structures in space that give off light, galaxies, the
radiation and so forth. if the universe has that shape like it comes from the distant source can hit our i but also passed by us, circle around the universe and come back a second time or third time. so if you can see the multiple copies of a given object, that would be a nice piece of observational evidence showing that it's fine that doesn't mean it's infinite, it could be big so that it has enough time to cycle around, but that is exactly what the physics is about to read during a theoretical one of the mathematical calculations, pushing to the limit and then trying to find the observational tests. >> tell us about some of these specific theories. let's start with the one that i liked the most. [laughter] the many worlds. it's somewhat different character of proposal for how we can be one of the many universe is coming and you may note that in the book is actually one of the leader tractors because --
chronologically it's early, you're right because i think in thinking about the subject marching through the development chronologically doesn't give you the most pedagogical a sensible way of thinking about where we are today. because in particular the quantum mechanics stands outside the chronological marked it ends up with the ideas of the strength pherae but it is an interesting proposal and that is why i have a chapter devoted to it. you are right, it is weird coming and you will note that in that chapter by basically come to the conclusion that i don't think it works. but that doesn't mean it doesn't. and if you're talking to other people, like a david deutsch, at oxford, or various other researchers, david and so forth, they would sit here and say it absolutely does work so i don't want to give the wrong impression. well, sure is the idea. so, the new idea of the quantum mechanics in the early part of the 20th century was that we're as newton said, tell me how
things are today and i will predict how they will be tomorrow. the universe is like a giant clock workable use of mathematics to turn the crank for word and predict how things will be and the observations we of thinking about things are accurate when applied to the everyday objects like glasses or the moon or to a rock that you throw newton can tell you what will happen and you to the observation and it does happen. great. when people began to probe the microscopic realm, the whole structure began to fall apart. >> different universe there. completely different realm. of what use the universe into many different ways to the different environment and in some ways shouldn't be so surprised how should the law is at work on the everyday scale also work on the timing skills and it turns out that they don't. they go on the quantum physics and the new idea of the quantum physics is that you can only predict the likelihood, the probability of one outcome or
another. so if i'm not dealing with iraq or the moon but in electronic and i want to know where it is, the quantums say there may be a 50% chance that it is over here and a 50% chance that it is over there. the 50% chance of each and can't do any better than that according to the quantum physics. the weird thing is when you do in observation of the electrons, you always find it either here or there, you never find it have here or there but a sort of melding of the two. so the puzzle has been for eight years -- eda years even though the probability of the quantum mechanics are confirmed by doing an experiment over and over again finding of the electronic 60% of the time here and 50% of the time here, how do you go from the fauzi probabilistic mathematics of the few to the definite reality that we've observed when we do an experiment? nobody has answered this question yet shockingly, 2011,
devotees answered this a proposal that comes from whomever in 1957 is this. he's as well it could be here or here. when you study them at diligently and really follow this through and apply it to the experimenter as well, the math seems to say that when you do the observation you find the electronic year, and you find the electron here just in the two different universes. each universe there is a copy of your thinking incorrectly that there is a single definite outcome but from the bird's eye view there's the two of you thinking that it and that is using the look-see of the electron that all the possibilities of but quantum walls are realized in one universe or another but recall the quantum of light verse. that's the idea. estimate but you believe it curious to know i don't believe it, i don't believe it because i don't think that we have
established yet in any of the analogies and it is controversial. some people think we have. i don't think we have established yet how this way of thinking about quantum mechanics actually describe as the observation. that link i don't think has been established. >> i don't think we understand the quantum mechanics. >> most people -- >> that is tantamount to the same thing. to understand the quantum mechanics to say how does it bring up with observations, and i don't think we've answered that yet. >> it just doesn't appeal to our understanding of the universe because we are living in a space where things don't happen the way they have been in the microworld. >> let me add to that. sometimes we can see large objects behave in quantum mechanically. they are very rare. >> i just want to emphasize that what you are exchanging expense for the quantum mechanics is counterintuitive. >> it is worse than that.
>> that's crazy. >> whatever words you like. >> i couldn't accept it. >> exactly right, but why is that? there's two parts to the story. now i was going to ask the question. >> i'm sorry. [laughter] >> you know, there's a part of the quantum mechanics that feels uncomfortable because of the experience, and that is the part which makes it hard to accept these crazy ideas. but if these crazy ideas have been fully worked out mathematically in the observation has been made which it hasn't yet been we have to accept that our intuition has been built up from thousands of years of living in a world of this size and there's no evolution a real advantage to understanding the probabilistic motion of electrons. when you are on the savannah trying to get your next meal, it doesn't matter if you understand the problem of the quantum physics it matters if you understand the dynamics of where that animal is going to be in five so you can jump in and eat
it and so our brains have to look to the newtonian. if i took this class and i took the water out and buy from it, somebody could catch it. they would be doing the calculation because it is into this. if i were to do the same thing with the electron didn't catch it because they don't of the cement division. that's the only part of the problem. the real problem of a quantum mechanics is not it is counterintuitive or crazy. it's that there is a puzzle we have not answered yet. how do you go from the probabilistic to the definite reality? that hasn't been solved. >> but why do you have to? are you a gambling man? you talk about your food habits. do you gamble? in the casino you have a life or something like that and it rolls around and the one member, the 36 number but this one, do you have a problem with that? >> to buy is a problem with
that? no, no. >> wendi have a problem with the probability of the electron? system event of a problem with the description, i do have a problem with of the theory that is incomplete. and that is our -- >> he said that it is incomplete. the fee is incomplete for a different reason. >> the problem of quantum mechanics have to do with the interpretation of other things even though he had the vision to but surely understand something that we call today the entanglement and the paradox and so on. but what i am asking is something that the lower level. you have no problem in going to las vegas -- gambling you have no conceptual problem and the dhaka on the prairie hunting the mastodon or whatever, you have no problem with the wherever you are hunting going one way and then another time choosing the animal going the other way. that is smithsonian in a sense,
right? would you really need to see a shrink if the wolf went one way and then the other way. >> if it looks like my mother or father i might -- [laughter] but -- >> i'm not sure the point you're making. >> you do an experiment and when you can observe it and open the locks, it goes one way, it can be to the right and then in another universal to the left. but when you don't it goes both ways. we know that. we are not neanderthal. it's okay for us. the typical young experiment is one of one particle, right? you have no problem with that at all? when you open the box he collapsed the weight so to speak. utah is the crime and roll the roulette wheel and it goes one way or another. why is that? and by the become the problem is not of mathematics and you know
that. for mathematicians, the operators and -- >> how many people are familiar with the space? [laughter] let me just be a little bit clearer. my problems with the quantum mechanics is nothing to the effect it involves probabilities. so i'm happy with probabilities. >> that is the alternative to the probability. is mike no, no, absolutely not. the people who believe in the world also believe in the probability. they are just trying to make a link between the probabilistic predictions and the fact that when you make an observation you see the silda fenech reali. and that link is a subtle one that has resisted the solution now for about 50 years. so if you were talking to a person who does believe that there are many universes' and quantum mechanics, you will
ultimately find they are trying to explain the same probability that kneal was trying to explain that in the old days. so it is not like einstein where he had in his mind that physics needed to make definite predictions. no, no, we've gone beyond that because our observations to show the probabilities work. we are trying to close the gap in the quantum. but my suggestion is that we move on from this because this is simply one variation. >> what is your favorite multiverse? >> it depends of the way in which you judge the favorite, but i certainly have a leaning towards those that have a chance of being experimentally tested in this timeframe which is one way of thinking about the subject and from that there is a multiverse that comes from the string theory which i find particularly exciting along these lines which is called the
brane multiverse from the following idea to be within the string theory and i think that many people have at least heard of what it is. it's the idea that the element of the constituents of the little tiny particles and the old way of thinking of things, the little tiny dots, the new idea of the fury is within these little particles there is something else which is a little tiny filament that vibrates in different patterns. the little film that looks like a little piece of string so the idea that deep in the heart of the matter is a little tiny vibrating string. as we study the mass of the fury more and more we come upon the following a very interesting idea. within this theory there are not only these little tiny filaments, there can also be what we call membrane, john and sheets if you will but can have the two dimensions or even three dimensions and so forth, and the math seems to suggest that at least it is possible that all that we know about every start of every galaxy and so forth is
losing its life out on one of these membranes. it could be a three-dimensional membrane. that's hard to picture so that we do a two dimensional and algae. imagine a big slice of bread where every store and a galaxy we know is on this slice of bread. that is our universe. now, this proposal suggests there could be other slices of bread, other membranes and universe is that if you will all partisan grand cosmos is to use the metaphor with our universe just being one slice of bread, one universe in this grand collection. why do i find this particularly exciting? at the large collider there is a chance that this proposal might be tested. how would that be? the call later slams protons against protons at high speeds, and the math shows that in some of the collisions if there is enough energy if you are moving fast enough when the protons collide they can create some that is the objective of our universe come off of our slice of bread.
how would we know that? the debris would take away energy with it. that means there would be less energy left for the detectors to measure after the collision than before there would be missing energy. people are looking for these missing energy signatures and if the energy is missing in the way that the math suggested it should be this would be the evidence that this bertino picture is correct that suggests there might be other universe is out there. >> have you been depressed recently? >> why do you ask? >> because you know that they haven't found anything in semidey and 14 they will find it, but right now has a lot of people may have heard, the results are negative on that and they are also on something else which i want to bring out. >> let me respond to that. it's very early in fact if they found anything at all the wouldn't denounce it. it would take years before they do. but you're making a great point. i would be thrilled because this is meant to be an experiment of
science. if we could rule out the string theory. let me be on the record very clearly about this, but i'd be depressed? i would jump for joy because i'm not wedded to a particular theory and why did towards working for truth. i don't do what you think. as you go around once i don't want to -- in this university of want to spend my time working on a fury that is incorrect. so if the string theory is wrong i would like to know today or yesterday so it is not a matter of having a certain emotional investment in one outcome or another. i have an emotional investment income trading however minimally that maybe to the ongoing human search for truth and finding a given a theory is wrong is progressing because you can throw that one away and went on the possibility. so the depression, know. excitement. >> good. so you will always be excited, whenever they find. >> it's the nature of reality, the nature of the universe is exciting to the estimate has been running for a full year now. i think the end of march, the 30
as of march is when they started and of course they stop for the brigety create so many collisions every second, trillions of the data accumulate. they haven't found anything. the first thing they ruled out at the energy level is the extra dimension. >> the exist but they haven't found it. i want to go in another direction in that at least for a short while. i just heard that they haven't found any truth of the symmetry either. just happened now. so as of now, with all of the data that the collected the .. supersymmetry is another place where the mathematics and physics might diverge. so let me add something. i'm not here to pull your psychologist but -- >> i'm a little bit worried. how many people feel like -- >> i will explain it. don't worry. >> okay. let me just explain it first.
[laughter] spec you don't trust me. >> you live here, they can come and visit you once in awhile. [laughter] so, the four most string theory is the superstring theory the full name of the superstring theory exactly what he's talking about is the supersymmetry. what is it? super symmetry is a fantastically interesting mathematical symmetry that relates things that previously we felt were totally unrelated. what is the symmetry? if i take this class and i began to turn it around, it is highly symmetrical which means no matter how alternative pretty much looks the same. each point is related to every other point in a way that suggests nothing is special. each can be turned into the other point by simply rotating it. similarly, there are classic particles in the world that are very important to us and particles that make this up.
electrons and things that make up protons, neutrons. those particles seem to be very different from the class of other particles by virtue of the fact that they actually spin around differently. those particles that we all know about turnout to something the way these little particles spin but there are other particles we know about that half stand one that's like the photon or the particles that communicate the forces and there are some hypothetical particles not yet seen that would have spent zero they wouldn't spend around all. supersymmetry is a mathematical symmetry that would relate all of those particles and sometimes each of those particles can be rotated into the others. now if that is the case that could be true there would have to be a certain other class of particles not yet observed that the known particles we know about what turning to under this kind of symmetrical rotation to read those are the super metric particles so for the electronics partnered under this kind of symmetry known as the super
symmetric electron or the sola strong. i don't name them. for every known particle there is a cousin called a particle. so we are not looking for the sparticles. if they, are there it would confirm this idea and if they are not it means we don't have sufficiently powerful accelerators to create these sparticles or it may mean they don't exist. that is the current state. >> it's a beautiful theory. but we don't know if it has anything to do with the real world. the problem of mathematics and physics goes back to paul. he was the person who, a physicist and an english physicist to deny to the quantum mechanics with a special pherae and when he did that in 1928, i think something like that, he looked at this equation. now i'm going to sound like rye and maybe in another universe i'm number nine. so, what brian says is we just
the mathematics and -- >> let me finish i have to interrupt you for putting words in my mouth. i'm saying that -- mathematics can be a potent guide for what we should consider interesting and investigate further, but until observations and the experiment confirms that no i don't trust -- i don't trust the observation in the experiment, find. so, paul was sitting in front of a fireplace at cambridge and he looks every allies is a way of uniting the special relativity with quantum few recreating the quantum field pherae. when he does that, she gets his mathematics and i'm not going to put words in his mouth, and he looks at the mathematics and the mathematics tells him that there are negative energy levels for the electronic he says well maybe anybody else looking at it would have said this is just the math. like when you solving equations and you get to solutions one is
imaginary and one is real you say i'm going to ignore the imaginary and only the real one is good for me in this particular real-world example but he didn't do that. he said their must be a particle because of the negative energy levels and he called -- that turned out first he thought it was a proton and then he realized another whole new particle. said he was looking for the new particles the way it looks for other particles, and that particle is a deposit and was actively discovered a few years later. so, the point is sometimes it works, but it doesn't work all the time. that is the example of heisenberg. so we want to follow the mathematics and we are in experimental science and want to see where it leads to the problem is -- and i think that it is a sort of for a lot of the physicist's today they believe in the supersymmetry more than or follow the supersymmetry a lot more than others theories so if we don't find these particles
it is a beautiful mathematical construct that may have absolutely nothing to do with this universe or any other universe. ultimately nature speaks and speaks to the experiments and observations. but you are right there is a large segment of the theoretical community that takes this idea very seriously. we have been working on it in one way or another since the 1970's. so if the particles are found, scientists around the world will be popping the champagne. this will be an exciting moment where the example you just gave would be capitulated in a big way. the particles are not found, we will accept that as the way the world works and go back to the drawing board and that for me is. >> good enough. how about the other theory is. the other ways you can get there. >> another one is money comes out of thinking very carefully about the big bang. we touched on the big bang earlier which is decided that
the universe underwent this rapid expansion early on but one of the things perhaps we ought to emphasize enough when talking in the general context is that the big thing if you react to we has something pretty important which is the thing. the big bang theory tells us how the universe evolved from a split second after whatever started the of course willing that happened in the first place, but it doesn't tell us what caused that to actually occur. people have been working very hard to fill in the gatt and the reason i bring this particular gap up is because there is a proposal now for what caused the of course will then called the inflationary cosmology and it is basically the recognition that goes back to einstein the gravity of a certain circumstances can be ripples for the gravity to be attractive you drop the class is false because the earth attracts it, trouble call it falls again, because the earth pulls things together, but the gravity does. but einstein shows that under exotic circumstances gravity can
actually push things apart. the belief is that the possibility is that the early universe that exotic environment was realized there is an energy state that gave rise to the ripples of gravity that pushed everything apart. that's why the universe started swelling in the first place. the thing is when you study this theory in detail what seems to show that this out for a swelling would not have been a unique one time event. it says there could be many of these beginnings of the various and testing locations in a much larger cosmos, each giving rise to the wollman to the corral and the observable universe and the universe that people like us could and had it but the universe upon universe. this is the inflationary multi verse and the nice thing about this approach is the idea that space underwent this rapid swelling nearly gone from the ripples of gravity that has been subject by some very interesting
observation and tests. if the universe went through this rapid swelling nearly non, here's what would happen. little tiny quantum fluctuations in the universe would be stretched out by the rapid swelling in spirit out across the sky and demonology if i have a balloon with a fine tipped pen imagine my roel message on the surface of the balloon you couldn't actually see if it's too small but if i blow air into the balloon as it stretches, my message gets smeared out across the surface of the balloon and now you can see it. the tiny quantum jitters in the universe are like a little methods and that is when space under this rapid expansion that the message gets smeared across the sky a tiny temperature differences and the heat left over from the big bang is called the cosmic radiation, and we've measured this eat leftover from the big bank and the way that the temperature varies from the point to point is exactly in line with the mathematical
calculation, and that is a very convincing piece of evidence for that least taking this quite seriously. >> i think the theory is taken quite seriously but most of only cosmology but even astronomers and physicists and the question is does it really implies the existence of something that is not observed which now is a multi multiverse. kinkos microwave fluctuations, and as they explain i think there are these galaxies from them as well come and that really implies rather than the mathematics you keep going back to the mathematics, doesn't mathematics really tell you that if you see this picture of the microwave background radiation you must have -- >> no, no, that's why i'm not here saying that these ideas are proven. you may recall when we started out this conversation i emphasized that these are speculators ideas that come from our investigation and until we
have an observation of the weekend believe that it's real. >> let me take a little bit further. what happens in the subject is when you have a theory that is able to describe things that you can see, it bolsters your confidence to follow the theory further. that's where the confidence comes from to follow it further. it doesn't uniquely imply there has to be another realm, know. there are versions of the fury or there would only be one realm. they are very hard to come by. they are very cumbersome and they feel very contrived from the mathematical standpoint. that doesn't mean that they are wrong they could be right, but the ones that don't have that quality are the ones that do give rise to the other universes'. so do we know that they, are there? absolutely not but as it suggested as a compelling possibility that is worthy of study? yes. and how would you know? what sort of experiment might give you insight? pure again its rhetorical. if you have these -- you have these expanding realms.
if you have these expanding realm scum imagine coming you know, as a big cosmic bubble bath of different universes with ours being one of those. now in a bubble bath and they can collide. similarly the universe is as the expand can collide too the form close enough together we can smash into each other. how would we know that if our universe had a kind of fender bender with another universe in the past? well, that collision can send a ripple for this he is left over from the big bang, the cosmic background radiation once again. so the scientists are looking in that mediation to try to find the fingar patterns and the temperature variation of this case that might indicate we got hit by another universe. is there any positive evidence yet? no, not yet. the collision could yield a signature that is too small for the current level of technology to access, or maybe it never happened. but that is the way that in the principle we could have observational evidence of a universe that you can literally
see. you see it's affecting our universe. >> how would you another fix several generations of satellites looking at the microwave background radiation and we know what about the radiation in fact is uniform to 110416 or something like that of the filtration. how would you be able to tell -- you have to give something concrete to say here's the universe in another universe and they collide. you lost me at the beginning because i don't think another universe can exist on this access because of the fact that we created this case. you haven't answered my question on that but let's leave that out spikelet the finish. islamic but you've given the impression that there's something missing, and the missing part is actually that you are not fully comprehend the idea because we are talking about -- >> i know what you're saying. there's the high prospect there and busbee six
>> knowledge can be a dangerous thing. you sort of note too much right now. [laughter] this has nothing to do with hyperspace. bread-and-butter cosmology of your memory dimension of the fact, let me just describe it. the cosmos that you are having trouble grasping, think of it as a big sauna. three dimensions, let's stay simple. the three dimensions that is filled with this energy that causes the out ripples of gravity that i referred to. what happens is region by region in this because most the energy can degrade and as it does, all polls open up in this wider cosmos where the energy turns into particles that makes the stars and galaxies caruso our universe is simply one of the regions where the energy has degraded. the image that works pretty well is think a lot of swiss cheese. imagine that the cheesy part of the swiss cheese is where the
energy exists and is forcing things to experience the gravitational repulsion. the holes in the she is are places where it has degraded and the stars in the galaxy can form a reverse of the different universe is i am talking about or the different holes -- >> so they are really one universe. >> whatever language you would like. i said earlier on -- >> has said early on the language is confusing. >> but we ask you talking about the experiment on the evidence of the multiverse, whatever the multiverse mean. so these universes' are colliding and here's the background radiation, it's fluctuating. how do you know from that and something else? >> that's a question that you face with all data. when you look to the data you say what is the best explanation for it and you try to ruled out all of your of the competing proposals and the proposal that stands up and is the best explanation is the one that you
have gained confidence and to read so we've done calculations and actually i have not done diesel calculations myself. others should get the credit for it. but others of the calculations of what would happen to the microwave radiation under this process. i may have a very explicit predictions for what would happen to the radiation, plus how the temperature would vary from place to place. and if you find the temperature variations in line with those predictions and there is no other competing explanation, then indeed you're confident in the possibility would likely grow. that's the way science works. >> let's assume it will happen when they come in and then we will have proof of it but until then of course we don't know. tell us about some of the other multiverse fees'. stat what time is it because i think the we've been going on -- >> 8:ten. >> i want to make sure people have the chance they want to. i don't know if the format is that you tell me. i had to keep on going. i have no place to go tonight but whenever you want to do.
>> i guess you got your answer. anyone have a question or want to throw anything else? >> we have time for questions now. we have to staff members with microphones who will be walking up and down the aisle. we will select you and when we do, please, stand up and don't begin talking until you have a microphone. we are ready for some questions now. >> first question, down here. >> i know this field moves very quickly, but in 2006 the theoretical physicist at the institute of canada wrote a book entitled the trouble with physics, and it seems to me that he has basically abandoned the
string theory chiefly because the lack of experimental confirmation. so my question is has he abandoned it too early for -- >> it's a good question and he is a good friend of mine, and he largely thinks his book has been misinterpreted. what she claims she was really mean to say in that book is that it is not the only approach to putting together a quantum mechanics and general relativity. there are other approaches in fact he's a champion. he has been one of the founders of the competing approach called the quantum gravity and part of what he was saying is that he feels too many people work on the theory, the field would be advanced if there was a more balanced approach where more people were on the other approaches and the string theory wasn't the sort of primary one
that was looked upon as a solution and in the community. i agree with that is evidenced by all sorts of different ideas. the reason they were on the string theory frankly is - it's a more attractive and more appealing and promising approach and that is how they make their decisions, but you know, full well agree that it would be great to have active centers of research and all of these approaches, and he helped found the premier institute that he mentioned in there are a lot of people working on the quantum gravity. so the idea that he abandoned -- he's not a string theorist. he worked on it from time to time and is one of the folks that really tried to cross over. maybe there's a way of doing the quantity and the fear remolding them together. he and i have discussed this and the would be great if it happened, but the main point is there are other approaches and they deserve attention and i would agree on that. >> we have a question over here.
>> my question is related to the theory basically about the fact that i could be asking a question of someone else, but whose world is it like if we are making these choices like are we creating these cults and if so whose world is the santa cruz was the other world, is it yours, is it my income is it someone else's? >> according to the bread-and-butter approach i'm a others others have developed since the 1950's, if you were in a situation where the quantum mechanics says there's a possibility of this, a possibility of dhaka, possibility of this and so forth, all of those possibilities happened to be it's not really a matter of you choosing which happens. the mathematics doesn't allow any possibility to go on realized. all roads are traveled in the quantum multiverse ..
.. and read it. few people go back to the thesis that you ever wrote down back in the 50s. if you actually read his defense, his nieces is a mathematical gem, where he makes a very potent case for this idea. from a modern perspective, i want to sort of opening can. when i read his piece is, i am taking a long and i am very critical of it because sort of like amir, it's an idea i don't think it's right.nk being taken along to sort of the last that he at the last that they think he didn't quite get right and i don't think anyone in my opinion has yet fielded i in.my others disagreeh me and say that it has been filled in. it is correct, all possibilities
allowed by quantum physics, i'm sometime announced and is described as there is one universe, where sarah palin as president. it has to be compatible with the law of physics. [laughter] [applause] >> next question over here. >> so come you mentioned the other quantum, do any half the implications as far as the multi-verse goes? >> you know, it's a good question. i don't know enough to answer that with any degree of confidence. in all of them, quantum mechanics as part of the story. so at the quantum multi-verses true, all of them will likely embrace it in the manner that we've been discussing. from that perspective, yes. in terms of the other
multi-verse ideas, am not sure what they have to say about it. >> question over here. in your many bubbled world, we know that after the big day, certain specific criteria had to be met or the universe would've flown apart. so in the other world, do they have to follow our laws in order to succeed or do some of them died? how does that work? >> so one of the deep questions we have faced over the last 15, 21st is certain features of our universe, certain numbers come as certain parameters like the electronic mass, the strength of the gravitational force, masses are and so forth. what we found is we understand numerical values the experiments are revealing, but we haven't been able to explain why those values have been found.
you might say, should we care if the electron was heavier later? maybe it's one of those details you shouldn't really worry about, but you should for exactly the reason u.s.? if those numbers had been somewhat different as we observe and know how they wouldn't exist. if i had a machine with 20 dials anathema to come up, any fiddling you do come in the universe does not evolve in a way that we know. stars don't form. planets don't form and it's hard to imagine how life could exist in such a universe. the deep question has been, why do those numbers have just the right values to give rise to the universe we are familiar with? we have had it dead ends so far in trying to answer that question. the multi-verse task has a very different way of thinking about that question, along the lines of what you suggest. the idea is maybe there are many, many universes in which
those numbers very from universe to universe to universe and most of those universes we couldn't exist. we couldn't observe any other value. we couldn't exist in those other realms. and that is an approach that may ultimately hold water. let me just give you a little analogy on this, that happened to me two years ago with my 4-year-old, which helps one understand this a little bit more. my son is six years old now. we went to a shoe store and this was the first time he was really old and a two begin to think about what was happening. the guide measures issue, goes back and everything's happy. my son turned stream the street and says, was that lucky that they had a shoe size? [laughter] and as i probed further, i realized what he had in mind
with that shoe store had a single shoe size and it just so happens that if it is for. [laughter] what a mystery that would be. i explained to him in the stock rendered many, many, many different shoe sizes and the guy picked out the one he measured. the ministry went away. the moral is if you think there is a unique object are trying to explain, that can be mysterious. if you realize it's not unique, it's one of the basque elections, the ministry can evaporate. just as we found the shoe size to fit his foot, we found a universe where the parameters that are existent in that maybe the the answer. >> i guess to preface this question, i'll ask you if you are familiar with ronald mallett in his time machine experiment. i guess these are theoretical physicists -- in connecticut,
ray. i guess he postulates that if you twist of life cannot come you can twist this time efficiently or at least send a subatomic particle to when the time ago. if such a machine would go, can something be used to maybe test some of these theories? [laughter] >> you talk about speculation. we are now in speculation squared. how would time travel interface to some of these ideas? let me turn it in that direction. i'll simply say this. one of the big postals are time travelers who affect things in a way that events are existed. you kill your parents before you were born and there's a logical paradox. back to the future, hollywood does this idea.
there is a variation on the paradox, which comes from the following idea. imagine you know -- imagine i travel to the future and i want to see what's happening, proven or not, so i go to the library or the floating internet station, whatever. and i see that surprisingly and that dear he has made a major advance in the author of that paper my mom. i'm like that's weird because my mom doesn't like physics. she wants me to be a.err, not this kind of doctor. all this sort of stuff. then i look in the acknowledgment to the paper in the future and she thanks me for teaching her all this physics. i'm like i better get back. i've got a lot of work to do. so i use your machine and traveled back and start to tutor my mother and it's not going well. she's not getting appeared a
year goes by, two years. how she ever going to write that paper? guys that i know is in my paper. i read it. let me tell you what to write. i tell her what to read and she paper and paper in every turns out in the future, who gets the credit? it's not a question of credibility. it is a question of where did the information come from? dishy think of that? no, she got it for me. but i think that? now, got up from her paper. now, how does this relate to multiple universes? here is the possible fanciful idea that people thought it. imagine when you travel to the past, for instance come you never come back to your own universe. you come back in the quantum multiverses, to one of those other copies that are universe. so for instance, if i go back in time and kill my parents before and born, i would be born in that universe, but so what.
i would still be unaffected because my parents to be unaffected. so again, it's a little far afield, but at least had some interaction with time travel. be not question over here. >> i just had a question about something i was recently aware of, the einstein condensation theory. some day now when people can produce a bose einstein in certain elements. hypothetically, if they could create that instance in a room, do all the basic theories of quantum mechanics break down? >> i don't think it does that. brian would be the final arbiter. but i think it was created here mit. it was also created in colorado.
so around the same time. you just call something, cool synonymous to a very cool temperature. what happens is the wave, the particles leave comments at the waves overlapping you are creating quantum mechanics for a large object, in this case a collection of atoms. i don't think it relates to anything else we've been talking about. >> and it really comes out of based the quantum mechanics. it's not incompatible. [inaudible] >> you absolutely reach a bose einstein condensate, on the waves come to one point. that's at the physicist at mit say. >> i personally wouldn't describe it that way. i'm not sure exactly what they had in mind. >> they describe it that way. >> okay. >> we have time for one last question over here.
>> yes, excuse me. i should preface this by saying i'm a diehard mini worlder. i was impressed and observation to your first book, where he noted the duality between links and one overlength over time, which seemed to have a special meaning if i understand this correctly about one fairman time after the big bang and the unknown stringer about the same. there was something i don't recall the details now, but something you said they're in the notes prompted this idea. i'd like to know if anyone is pursuing anything like this. that is if you imagine there's a moment perhaps this one permit time after the big bang of perfect symmetry, zero much of a universe that is no mini roadstead going to evolve, perhaps 10 to the 500th of what it takes to get us forward
to all the versions of this year now, we could look at the same thing. you'd expect the same thing to be happening in the one overinterpretation going back towards the moment of the so-called big bang. now that singularity turns into a dilution, dislike singularity at the north pole using an in an appropriate set of axes to describe it having. so here's this image of us and we have this other doppelgänger, which is a multi-verse repeated in that first little moment of time. if anyone pursuing ideas like that? >> it is one of the most surprising features of string theory, which shows under the circumstances largely you are recounting a universe that bigger then the plane feeling and expanding, that isn't equivalent to universe smaller
and contract. that is our world you're talking about. i wouldn't use the word doppelgänger or image to describe these two rounds. they are distinct mathematical descriptions of the same reality. it's really two different ways of looking at the same thing, even though they seem vastly different. i would cosmologies luck and a singularity in this picture? right here at harvard, and other cosmologists named robert rina berger studied in the context of this universe that had this one symmetry and they did find something along the lines of what you're in. so what is the singularity? 51 back in time because denser and denser and denser. they found in this sendup when the university is more than a plank length, temperature
bubbled out and as it gets smaller, the temperature starts to turn down because of the very symmetry are talking about. it never spikes to infinity. there's never a time never a time of the time-limited seekers instantly big hit there was a cosmological model that has been proposed based on a symmetry. there were other things it doesn't describe you. there's much work they would need to be done to take it fully seriously. as a toy test case of a cosmology rather wouldn't be a singularity, is one of the most public words come out of strength here. >> we have time for another brief comment -- question. >> i wanted to point out that if you take that kind of a model seriously, then our current event horizon would be
when you described one coming up described everything and about look like an evolving affinity to an embedded observer come but she don't have this problem of what do we mean by internet? >> yeah, rooted in the fact we are talking about the radius of a circle, which is of course a finite size. you have a finite universe, so indeed you are right. he would not have this problem we were tass lane with earlier on. he can come absolutely. more questions? i'm sorry, are we done? >> is going to say, i think our
>> the national consortium for the study of terrorism is hosting a forum tomorrow morning >> he's a partisan guy who wants to unite people. i mean, all of the problems of the era you could get up in the sky. and why we couldn't elect him is the same reason we eventually went to war. they couldn't be resolved. >> he had the misfortune of running against a great military hero, dwight eisenhower. so i don't really think there's any way that adlai stevenson --
>> if you think about smith in 1828 and herbert hoover, that paved the way for franken roosevelt. there are 14 people in the series, many of whom i guarantee viewers have never heard a. all of them i can guarantee they will find fascinating and certainly surprising. >> now, david brooks and our unconscious mind shapes our
biases. he was at the free library of philadelphia for an hour to talk about is both, "the social animal," sources of love, character and achievement. plear >> is a great pleasure to be hometomore or less in my hometown.wnead in went to hack their high school about 13 miles west of here. and so it's always good to beo,s back home in this area. because they know philadelphians, i know you didn't come to hear me speak.ie. get out of your way. it is a pleasure to be back. i try and think of what my high school teachers at ratner would've thought if they could see me addressing crowds in philadelphia. there'd be widespread shot. i was not a big man on campus, though i was stuffed into lockers by some of the big men on campus.
[laughter] actually, one of my debate partners on the debate team needless to say. tom wilson played this in the back to the future movies in another one was a guy named josh warman who chases tornadoes that was one of the subjects of the movie twister years ago. so they went on to lead exciting mines and i went on to talk. and now, a lot of the people i talk with our politicians. and so, when i was given my current job at the times, i was given a good piece of ice which was to agree to politicians every day. concerning that much time, they are all emotional freaks of one sort or another. they have logorrhea dementia, which is a tax that much they tried themselves insane. [laughter] that they do have incredible social skills. when you meet them by and large, they will seem close to you, invade your personal space, read the back of your head and
caressed her cheek. dinner with republican senator couple years ago kept his hand on my thigh the whole meal. [laughter] several years ago, senate press gallery watching dan quell intan kennedy greet each other and they gave each other these big hugs in their faces are so far apart and they are laughing and groping in their hands are revving up and down each other's backs and grinding away there. get a room. i don't want to see this. [laughter] another story atoll, which is a bit of name dropping. i'm going to a hotel in boston and bill clinton comes out of one of the elevators and starts praising me for a column i had written praising him, which was particularly an astute column. as he is talking, people see them in the lobby and he starts backing that said they cannot hear what he's saying.
within a few minutes, he's like 80 feet away, but just talking to me and just embracing the crowd. another case i was following mitt romney around while campaigning the last election cycle. he was campaigning in new hampshire with his five perfect sense, the, chip, rip and dip. and so he goes into an exciting diner and goes to the tables of introducing himself to the families and asking where their friend in describing the home he owned in the village. then he would go from table to table anemias 30 people. on the way out he first names almost everybody he's just met. like okay, let the profession i won't be going into. finally, just a few weeks ago at the national institute of health i wish i'm very neuroscientists a video of a young girl with williams syndrome. he looks from the outside like reverse autism.
the little girl is 18 months old in a room with a 12-year-old roy, some of the researcher and she only wants to look into his eyes. the boy is juggling and knocking over stuff. she has no interest in the physical objects in the room. she only wants a social connection. she gets close and stares into his eyes, minute after minute. i was thinking this is every senator i've ever interviewed. they are socially attuned creatures. when they turn their minds to policy, all the social sophistication vanishes and they start thinking like cbo report, like computer models. i have covered a lot of what has to do with the overly simplistic view of human nature. so i covered the union and we sent economists and with digitization plans. what they really liked favor social trust and we were going to die. as a result they really so
everything in the debate. then i covered the war in iraq. we sent the military and animators were oblivious to the cultural and psychological realities in iraq and unprepared for that. we had a financial system and regulatory machine based on the assumption that bankers for rational self-interested creatures who wouldn't do anything en masse and that turned out not to be true. most importantly, we covered education, trying to understand why 30% or 20% of kids drop out of high school. and we've tried for years to try to raise high school graduation rates. most of those efforts have been disappointing because we rearrange the bureaucrat boxes, big schools, little schools, charters, vouchers will screen the central issue, the individual relationship between a teacher and student. [laughter] people learn from people they love. if you talk about love at a
congressional hearing, they look at you like your opera. they don't talk about language. the question is why did the most socially attuned people completely dehumanize them to think about policy. i came to the conclusion this was not simply a political problem, but a broader cultural problem. we have in our society disinherited view we are divided house, we have reason over here and a motion over here and the two are at war with one another on a seesaw. if you're emotional, not rational. if your rational come you're not emotional. society progresses to the extent the reason, which is trustworthy can suppress the passions, which are untrustworthy. this biases the tree view of human nature that we are fundamentally rational individuals to respond and straightforward ways to incentives. his lead to academic disciplines the traitors to the human behavior using the methods of physics, and physics, emphasizing what they can count
on model and sort of ignoring all the rest. i think it is led to an amputation, shallow view of human nature oriented site things rational and accountable and ignore and are inarticulate about a sound below. it has created a cold culture and work data type in about the motions. really good at talking about health and safety and professional skills, but about the most important things like character and integrity, we often have little to say. alice mcenery, the great philosophers said we live in a system where we still have words for important things like virtue and honor, but we don't have a basic understanding of how they all fit together. imagine science for the neutron or gravity, but didn't understand how physics work and how they'll fit together is where we are. i do think we have this amputation, which us in a certain way. it poses in the direction that
we are not only satisfied with. i mention i went to high school in my folks to live in pennsylvania just listed here. the parents. many places sort of trapped in a certain style of raising their kids. you go to an elementary school there in the third graders wearing these 80-pound backpacks, the wind them over. fairly beatles stuck on the ground because we want them to study and get ready for the harvard admissions status. they get picked up by sobs and audis and volvos because in that town essentially acceptable to the luxury car salon succumbs to a country hostile to u.s. foreign policy. [laughter] big it raised and picked up by a creature called goober masur had a successful career women who take time off to make sure their kids get into harvard and they actually weigh less than their own children. they do but exercises during the
moment of conception, cutting umbilical courts themselves. the baby pops out in the mandarin flashcards put together so they can learn chinese. they turn them into little achievement machines and sat robo product is. they aren't happy with it. they don't do gets the most important thing, but the tiger mom down the street is doing it and they feel trapped into a system in which they ridicule, but actually can't renounce. they are often in a system where they sorted into at the morality and character matters most, but don't quite heavy vocabulary for it. when people talk about morality, often wind up talking about shopping. in radner we had the ben & jerry's ice cream of its own foreign policy. i joked with my books that ben & jerry's should make the pacifists to space. it's got a whole foods market,
one of the grocery stores vote -- are so quick their loans from amnesty international. in my house we buy their seaweed-based macs called veggie booty with care, for kids who, in same on a snack that will help prevent colorectal cancer. [laughter] so i think this is sort of the world we are trapped in. though we realize that is not all there is and there's more to life and more that we should be experiencing. so i was thinking about this problem and gradually became aware of this other sphere of life, where they were looking into some of the deeper things. at the western theologians, though i've read a lot of theologians. it is people who study the human mind. when this incredibly exciting. in the study of mind done across a wide range of spheres like neuroscience, cognitive science,
psychology, behavioral economics, people are looking into the human mind. really it's a revolution because many synthesize their findings across these many different spheres can be released start with three key insights. the first site is for the conscious mind writes the autobiography of our species, most of the action in the most impressive action happens unconsciously below the level of awareness. one way to think about this is the human mind can take in roughly 12 million pieces of information a minute, which it can consciously process about 40. all the rest is done without our being aware of it. a lot of the things going on are somewhat odd. i figure research finding from the university of buffalo scholar is people named dennis are disproportionately likely to become dentists. people named lawrence are disproportionately likely to become lawyers because unconsciously we gravitate towards things that are
familiar, which is why need my daughter president of the united states brooks. [laughter] some other things going on unconsciously are sort of impressive. it's not the tangled web of urges that for an imagined. the unconscious is really a different way of understanding the world and often yielding superior results. one of the tips i read about this if you have a tough decision, tell yourself you decided by coin flip. flip the coin, but don't go by how the point comes. go buy your emotional reaction. are you happy or sad it came out that way? @conscious mind having made the decision and tell you what it thinks. the third area that happens unconsciously is really the most important. how do we relate to people? had we understand situations and perceive the world? these are the fundamental factors in whether will have a successful life and a lot of
that action is happening unconsciously. the second insight is the motions are the enemy, emotions are at the center of thinking. people with stroke solutions that can process properly or not supersmart. what the emotions do is they assign value to things. they tell you what you want, which evaluates you don't value. if you don't have the valuation advice come you cannot make rational decisions. emotions are not separate from reason. they are the foundation of reason. i'm a middle-aged guy not talking about emotion particularly. one of the scientific experiments iran to coach the practical, but still thinks it's the truth is they took middle-aged guys, put them in from her eye, brain scan machines and have them watch a horror movie and describe feelings towards their wives. the brain scans were the same in those circumstances. [laughter] sheer terror. i know what that's like. my wife's history writing about
emotions this can't be right in a book about gluttony. it's not in natural thing. they're the center of power brain organizes itself. in 1945 was orphanage outside by renée smith. at this orphanage, they decided to keep kids healthy they would keep them germ-free. they gave them food and good health care, they did not handle them. they separated them. those kids died by age two. ibid. 37% polity rate. they stopped naming the kids because they weren't living long enough. but it's a sign of how emotion is literally physically necessary. and so emotion is something you just have to get comfortable with. the third insight is we're not self-contained individuals. we're social animals with deep inner penetrations to another. every second are mine is not
only seen you come to see me, we are reenacting what we see insider online, deeply interpenetrate it and they are all sorts of communications through which we are communicating in ways we are not even aware. there was one story about a psychology professor wandered side to side in this class paycheck, when it's over here, work at home. within two minutes, he was out of the door. he just thought better thought better of it there. another experiment done in germany, taped it under people's arms, some people watch a horror movie, so much a comedy. at other people to sniff the gauze pads, presumably well-paid. and save to their watch a horror or a comedy. tickets are way above average you saw what appeared women were much better at this than men. so, we are deeply interpenetrate it. these findings give us a different story of how life
works any difference of who we are. so we are in many ways children of the french enlightenment, the leading reason is the highest of our faculties. the research confirmed some of the emphasis of the british or scottish enlightenment. david gibbs and not an smith, the reason is weak and sentiments are quite strong. our most important faculty. it gives a different view of who we are in human capital and what it takes to lead if you fill in knife. when we talk about human capital, talk about things you can measure. grades come in degrees, sat scores. all that's important. their other qualities more important, which are both emotional and rational and make a hash of these two categories. one of the talents is this thing called mine site, ability to mentor other nine similar to download what those mines have to teach you. babies, quick to a great degree.
alan millsaps was a researcher at university of washington, thunderbird baby and whacked his tongue at her and she went back. babies at the sager bill to merge with the mines they come into contact with and really absorb models for understanding the world from the day come in contact with. the 18 month, about 55% of american babies have established a two-way relationship with her mom primarily, but also the dad. those kids had secure attachments. they really know how to build relationships with parents and with adults. those kids have a huge lake. researchers can take a look at kids who were 18 months old, look how they attached a mom can predict with 77% accuracy was going to graduate from high school. if you go into a school at three or two or five and you know how to relate the teacher, you just have a better shot at doing well in school. 20% of the kids are what they
call upward in the attached. kids sending out signals, but not much has been coming back at them. a teacher described one of the kids coming in the classroom tack in like a sailboat in the win, wanting to get close to the teacher, but not knowing how to do it. those kids have less activation and reward areas of their brains during social interaction. less of a kick out of social engagement. by age 70, no of many, many fewer friends than others. something that happens at 18 months does not determine a life course, but opens up a pathway, which can be either confirmed or just confirmed by later experience. somebody with the bad attachment can discovery mentors in their life can be changed. these are the skills you learn very early on. a second skillets which you may call equipoise. this is serenity and maturity to
look inside your own mind and be aware of your weaknesses. for example, the unconscious as many skills, but some weaknesses. 95% of college professors believe they have above average teaching skills. 96% of above-average leadership skill. "time" magazine asks people in the top 1% of earners. 19% of americans are in the top 1% of earners. paul shoemaker and edward russo gave tester executives about the industry and asked how confident are you that your answers right quite advertising executives said they were confident they get 91% rate. in fact they got 60% wrong. computer executives, most overconfident industry thought they got 95% rate. in fact they got 80% wrong. this is a strongly gender linked trait. men drown at twice the rate of women because men think they can swim across that lake, especially after they've been drinking. and so, have the ability to
correct your own biases. he had the ability to be open-minded in the face of ambiguity, to adjust the strength of your conclusions and strength of your evidence to be modest in the face of the things you don't know, to invent modesty devices for yourself. when you make a decision, rights and the reasoning, seal it in an envelope and open it in nine months. you'll discover a third-year decisions are right come in third rock from a third in between. in most cases, your reasoning will be irrelevant. these are skills in 10 japanese related to i.q. mental character, not mental force that has to do with emotional equilibrium. the third trait is the record called menace, which we may call street signs, ability to look across a scene and pick out a pattern to arrive at just. there's a story in my newspaper about soldiers in iraq who could look down the street and sort of tell if there is a bomb on the ee